tv Today in Washington CSPAN August 29, 2009 2:00am-6:00am EDT
the roles, but i can be persuaded and i hope to be. but, you know i think, like it not, we are going to have to come to an agreement and we have got to get thimission off the table. >> you need a republican chuck schumer that it's conceivable. [laughter] apologies to chukka i should say. no, but this mccain play that role? clearly, because i agree that kennedy's absences felt then a lot of areas, but i do see this, this is such a difficult issue for republicans. bush kind of me it work for a bit but even bush at the height of his popularity could not make this work inside the party. >> this theme for the week,@
business are born around the kitchen table. he calls small-business the heart of the american economy. overall, this administration is sending a clear message. minority-owned small businesses are playing a crucial role in getting this out of this receion and into recovery. at the sba, we believe in the power and the potenal of minority-owned small businesses. we know that small businesses create over 70% of the jobs in this country. half of americans who work own or work for a small business. small businesses drive competition shoo they drive innovation. they drive 21st century jobs. the sba is working to make sure
the minority-owned businesses can not only survive, but can grow even in these difficult times. we have three priorities to do that. first, implementing the recovery act. the second is reinvesting in our agency. the third is to be the strongest possible voice of small business across the administratn. first, the recovery act. economic stimulus. all of you know what happened in october. in october, banks stopped lending. credit les froze. small businesses were struggling to find the capital that they need. congress and this administration understood that the small business community needed some extra help. they included over $700 million for the sba in the recovery act.
it has been six months. this has been a smalsmart investment. we have been able to get the money into the hands of small businesses. it is working. in march, because of the recovery act, we were able to implement two important changes in the sba's top loan programs. we've reduced or eliminated many of the fees in our 504 programs. wanted you small businesses to keep more of that money and to be able to reinvested back into businesses. we were able to increase the federal backing on our 7a loans up to 9% so lenders would offer more sba loans. as a result, we have been able
to get more than 1000 lenders who were not making loans after october that making sba loans. more than half of those have not participated in making sba loans since 2007. this means a bigger network. more banks and more points of access for allf you small businesses. as a result, our loan volume is up more than 50% from the weeks before the recovery act pasd. this means that we have been able to put $9 billion into the hands of america's small businesses at this crucial time when they needed the most. i am proud to say that in the first six months of the recovery act, nearly 5500 of these sba
loans went to minority-owned small businesses. do you know how much that is? $2.2 billion in the hands of minority-owned small business. [applause] this is the everyday work data sbat the sba. a study by the urban institute estimated that the sba loans are three times to five times more likely to go to a minority-owned business or a woman owned business thathose that go to a conventional lender. the best part is that borrowers are reporting that the loans a helping create or maintain tens of thousands of jobs all across the country as you've heard this
week, we're not stoppg. are renewing our commitment to federal contracting with small business. we are working across the federal government to ensure that small businesses can deliver at least 23% of all the federal contracts. we have special callsgoals and emphasis on minority-owned small businesses, women owned small businesses, and veteran owned small businesses. we see this as a win-win. minority-owned businesses get creased volume and sales. they can hire more people. they get a lift to be competitive and take their products across the globe. federal agencies whin also.
they get access to the most innovative and nimble and responsive companies. often in a small business, they have dect access to the ceo and the owner. so far, more than 20% of stimulus contracts have gone to small business. we're hitng many of our targets. nearly half are going to minority-owned small businesses. if you count the big and small minority-owned small businesses, it is over 1 billion. we announced a government righwe outreach effort to build on this success over the next 90 days. we will work with are for treatment partners -- we will work with our procurement
partners. we're doing matchmaking ents. over two hundred events. we will help put contracts in the hands of people like you. i used to say it is like speedskang. i think is really a longer-term relationship. now i call it e-harmony. in the announcement, the president himself said that providin the maximum practal opportunity -- he called it essential. the vice president said, "the administration is committed to ensuring that small and minority-owned businesses are part of the economic recovery every step of the way." billns more in contracts are coming down the pipeline. this push could not come at a better time. today i want to encourage you to
do a few things. i wt to make sure that you actively market more products and/or services to these agencies just like you would to anyustomer. i am pleased to hr that many of you have been actively doing just that. good. with both lending, contracting and the recovery act, ue're doing a number of things. you're giving taxpayers a big bang for the buck. we're putting the brakes on this recession. and we're doi the side-by-side with minority-owned all businesses. [applause] we are also doing some other things. we are investing in and reinvigorating our agency. we are investing in our strong
network of partners better serve all of you, all of the minority-owned small businesses. sba has great bone structure. we have more than two thousand employees. 68 district officers all across the country. you can add to that more than 1200 on call employees who come to an area when its hit by a natural disaster. in addition, we have resources partners. we have 900 small-business development centers. many of you have probably used the services. and 100 women owned business centers. all of these 14,000 councilors are there. one of them told me they think
we have a counselor within one hour of most small businesses in this country. in fact, their businesses up more than 5%. within this vast bone structure, we have some very important people for helping with government contracting. we have dozens of procurements center representatives and they are stationed at federal facilities all across the country. i encourage you to get to know them, to reach out to them, to contact them. they're the to be your partners. @@@@@ in this administration, small
business has a seat at the table. we are taking action to show the importance value of small business. we are working with hard-hit industries like the automotive suppliers in michigan. i was there when we launched a cluster of these suppliers in the robotics industry, linking them to the department of defense, which h a great interest and robotic technology. we are working with the department of energy to build on the grounds will start up firms that are creating green jobs. we're supporting efforts by our partners and working with the the palm printhe department of d
others in events like this across the country. we will build on this and we will create an environment where all kinds of small business can flourish. from main street small businesses to some of the hh- growth, high impact businesses like all of you in this room. that means we will also tackle some tough issues. one of them his health care. healthcare is the number one concern of small business. the number one concern is that small businesses need access to affordable health care. 13 million of the uninsured come from small businesses that have less than 100 people. all of you out there who are providing health care, you pay up to 18% more for the same
coverage as large businesses pay. we know small businesses are like families. you want to provide the coverage. it is a huge burden, especially in this economy. the situation now is untenable. there are options on the table. they're working theiray through congress. but we do know this. we must have reform that provides acces to affordable health care for small businesses. [applause] on this issue and on others, you can be sure that the sba is a strong voice here in washington for the interests of small businesses. it will become stronger every day and more informed every day because of the partnership with
business leaders like yourself. thank you. my commitment to you is that we willccomplish our priorities that i have described, working side by side with americans. 4 million minority-owned small businesses. thank you. thank you very much for being here. [applause] now i am pleased to give some awards. im going to give the awards for the 8a graduate the year, the sba administrators leadership award, and the national mority business person of the year. before that, want to do a quick recognition.
is judith here? i hope so. if you are, stand up. i just want toay that the legacy award for lifetime achievement is given out every year. it goes to someone who has played a strong will in the process of the minority business community over 25ears or more. we're very proud that they chose one of our own at the sba. as i understand it, she will be recognized more formally tonight at the gala. i wanted to make sure that we also recognize her today. congratulations to our illinois district director, judh. [applause]
our first award is the natiol 8a graduate of the year. it is given to a firm that represents the true spirit of the 8a program. the award is highly competitive. the criteria are tough. they must make the most of the training and the mentoring opportunities ina. 8a is a business development program. they must show how they have grown to be an independent force in the marketplace. they must give back to their community. our winner has done all that and much more. she was born and raised in buffalo , in buffa -- she was born and raised in buffalo, new york. she worked for her father's plumbing company. after that, he told her she should do her own thi. she started slr contract team.
with a commitment to quality, customer service, d innovaon, slr began to double sales each year and expded to two more locations. you know how hard that is to double your sales. the business actively participated in both of oura programs. today, our winner also serves on a number of local nonprit boards she reaches out as a motivational speaker in the community. please help me congratulate the ceo of slr contracting and services, sundra l. wright. [applause]
treasury, and now he serves as the associate administrator in the office of small business utilization at the department of homeland security. he helps small businesses who want to contract, and he does it very well. in his most recent scorecard, dhs hit all but one of the schools. furthermore, if it agency says that they're having difficulty reaching one of their contracting goals, we refer them to him as a model ofur very best practices treaty served as the vice chair of the interagency counl that includes all of our federal government, small business, small and disadvantaged business utilization offices, and the sba has already recognized him with two other major awards. when he speaks about federal small business procurement,
zone programs. in addition, she consistently speaks out about the benefits of working with minority-owned small businesses, women owned, and veteran known to small businesses. in january, she was selected as the acting associate administrator for gsa's office of small business utilization. we know that she has helped build a foundation for successful contrasting at gsa. if you sur scorecard last week, you saw the results of her work. gs was the only fdderal agency to meet all five of its contracting goals. smallusiness, small disadvantaged businesses, and service disabled veterans. she continues to set the bar.
please help me recognize mary parks. [applause] [applause] >> finally, i am pleased to present our national minority- owned all businesses person of the year award. first things first. like to recognize that 10 regional minority-owned small businesses people of the year. it is a very competitive process
to become a regiol winner. these dynamic individuals already own and operate 8a firms that have begun to show signs of growth, sales, and job creation. they have to be in business for at least three years, show a good track recd of performance, and they need to show that they are aive inhe community. its 10 business will be recognized again this evening. if the regional winners could please stand so we can give you a g round of applause. [applause] >> and now the final award. this is a surprise, i think. this year's national winner is a company that was established in 2002.
these two profeional engineers came together to build a company based on high quality service for every client. they offer a wide range of services, from geotechnical consulting t mccanno a and electrical services -- to major renovations. they said no job was too big or too small. they have projects ranging from $3,000 to $6 million. they quickly grew to serve both public and private sector in both north carolina and south carolina. but perhaps most importantly, they know that their people are their biggest asset. it is not just their staff, but it is also the many small businesses that they have begun to mentor and help grow and subcontract with. i am very pleased to honor the
december the 8th" and the coract with the earth. >> host: why books along the way as you pursued your political clear? >> guest: there's stories you want to tell that are longer than an interview or an article in a newspaper. and you can develop things in books and you can have a conversation with your audience over time. and we've tried to develop a
series of ideas, some of which, frankly, are dicouragingly still relevant. i'm producing a book in january called real cnge and one ction of it comes straight out of window of opportunity. we have 24 years and we didn't solve the problems i was descbing 24 years ago. i hope my contribution in books is a kind of ongoing communication or ongoing dialog trying to develop ideas and ways of thinkingbout ideas. >> host: to our audience, this is this is a three-houp program. it's interactive and your opportunity to ask questions by email or phone calls. we'll put the phone numbers and our email address on the bottom of the screen as newt gingrich and i speak here about his book we're going to start about his1 2007 books and talk about his historical novels and his political books. 2007 brought two new books, one
in each of these categories. i want to srt with your latest, "a contract with the earth." what's the idea with this book with terry ple? >> guest: he's a professor in georgia tech. a professor with primate education. he decided to turn the zoo over to the private organization, the friends of the zoo and they hired terry to work in zoo america. and he created a world class rearch zoo in atlanta and down in palm beach doing the same thing there. we've been good friends for a quarter of the century and we've been talking about there's a real need commonsense, market-oriented science based entrepreneurialism. that there ought to be, in fact,
an alternative that is more productive and a moreffective system and we thought "a contract with the earth" was the right way to start the conversation. the response we've gotten is terrific. there's a real hunger among americans for a mainstream environmentalism and i think terry maple really represents that ande were very honored because e.o. wilson,(n on of t great blogist of our time wrote the beginning of the book. >> host: the use of the word "contract" in the title immediately calls to mind your contract with american? >> guest: we wanted to get across to the people to do something very different. contract with america was a very, very different apoach. it wasn't a platform. it didn't say we sport these things. it was a contract. it said if you give us power, we'll actually vote on these in the first 100 days, which we did. and we want to get across the same idea that we nted to think about a new social contct a contract that recognizes that we have that we have an obligation to take care
and nurture the world that our creator wanhas endowed that. we need to have incentives rather than regulations and with a very heavy reliance on science and technology. >>ost: you were saying at the outsetistressingly changed litt othe two decades. in the contract with america there was a quid pro quo, electricity with us and we' change these. there's no representative group that could be elected brought to power in some sortf way to get this agenda done. how has change happen? guest: i think in this case we're suggesting several things. this is more of an intellectual book. contract of america was a political document. iecently met with 15 governors, for example, and talked to them about the idea of rethinking their approach to both energy and the environment by using incentives and prizes and entrepreneurs and science and technolo and recentering about the way they think aut public policy.
our hope is these ideas will create a very rich dialog. that you can have a real dialog between right and left rather than just a debate, and you can try to find better solutions and better ways to get things done faster. d out of that, my hope i'll be up on capitol hill next week talking to a number of house and senate members and tryg to develop these kind of new, better approaches. >> host: if one does a nexus search for you and al gore, you names pop up for almost a decade and a half o working on opposite sides of issues. is it interesting to you that this book came out in the same ar he won the nobel prize for working on similar issues? >> guest: well, in a sense. vice-president gore and i actually go back to when i got elected to congress in 1971. at one time we were both members on the future. we both were oriented toward science and technology. he tended to come at a from a more collectivist, more left wing view and i came fro a more market and conservative view. we've had a long career of
knowing each other and critiquing each other's work. and i think what he tried to do, at least in starting the conversation with his movie, is totally legitimate. i don't agree with some of his solutions, but i strongly agree with the idea tha having a dialog about the environment and having a dialog about energy is a very important part of our future as a country. >> host: this interest in the earth and the environment, as you say, went back a long way. i have by way of demonstrating that and also bringing a bit of your personal biography anld c-span clip to show you and the audience. this is from 1994 when we traveled to your hometown pennsylvania and spoke to your mother about your interest? >> guest: newtie, as i heard a baby. i didn't see him, i saw his shadow in the hospital. he was yelling his lungs out and he just never stopped. he has talked always.
always. that's why he's such a good speaker. my cousin kept the children and bob and jny went to the shore overnight. when we got back they had a zoo. they had anything that was wounded, ty brought home, including a snake, which i'm terrified of. but i which marilyn was there all the animals newtie -- they just found them and they brought him home >> besides animals whatlse were they interested? >> fossils. he had a box under his bed. you can ask him. he can tell you. >> did you think at one time he would end up having a career that would have something to do with animals or fossils? >> yeah, yeah. curator of a zoo. i thought that was where he was headed for. and as i said, now he has his
do. >> host: i'm sure it's fun to see your mother all these years later. what started that interest, do you know? >> guest: you know, i reall 4wh$"", across the people i babysat for had the time life series on dinosaurs and once the kids went to bed, i spent the whole evening reading these fabulous books with these huge pictures and i was thralled. one of the gre things for me
personally was to go to the paleontology center a talk to the national organization of the paleontologist was a great deal. >> host: and it's the gat effect of young people reading books? >> guest: absolutely and being encouraged to learn and to explore. sometimes darwin started as a beet collector. sometimes it's just encouraging to go out in their backyard and notice the butterflies and the birds and the beetles and it all comes away. >> host: along the way has been historical fiction. and this is your latest, "pearl harbor." you start it as a trilogy? >> guest: i think it's more of trilogy. i think it will run to 13 volumes. >> host: 13 volumes? >> guest: the last series e did you a trilogy. when i came to washington as a congressman i became very active with the army as an advisor
starting in 1979. and so i'm the t+slongest-servi teacher in the military. and i had a long interest in how can i explain to the average person the complexities of the rld we live in, in an exciting and interesting format and get people to think. so all three ph.d.s in history came together and we began talking about the idea, what if we could write an active history where you got to.& a certain pot and something was changed? and now you have to think about it. you can't just memorize it. you got to say what would have happen if that occurred? so "pearl harbor" is our most recent launch kind of approach. we want to do the asian war and people don't realize that from hawaii to the philippines to taiwan to china to korea to japan to india to malaysia. and world war ii was a very
complex war. so we have started down the road of writing about it. and "pearl harbor" is ourirst effort in that direction. and we have one very specific change, and only one in "pearl harbor." the original japanese attack on pearl harbor iseld by admiral nagumo. and nagumo was a battleship admiral. he didn't believe in aviation attack. and the leader of that fleet wañ yamaot who was a great gambler. he made money playing poker in the u.s. and in pces like monte carlo. whatf the japanese had convinced themselves that the most critica step on december 8th, which is the date in tokyo, december 7th in the u.s., was the rai at pearl harbor and there are yamamoto should have led it and what happened if he hadn aircraft admiral andho
was aggressive and risk-taking lead the raid rather than a very cautious and conservative battleship admiral? and i think "pearl harbor" is a pretty goo description, both of the danger to democracies in lying to themselves about wt's happening and the ability of an enemy who's technologically advanced who really surprises you badly. >> host: the novel of december 8th. that's got to have peopl scratching their heads? >> guest: we did that deliberately to also send a signal that we were telling the story at least % from the japanese standpoint. all joins naval orders are dated from tokyo. and so it was december the 8th 'cause of the international timene and the attack on pearl harbor was the -- the actual instructions, if you go back and read the instructions of the say on december 8th you will do this and they list the tokyo time and soll japanese warships had to both remember tokyo time and local time when they were doing things. >> host: there's a character
fuchita throughout the entire novel. is he real? >> guest: he's real. he was a very famous aviation pilot. he led the raid at pearl harbor. herote several booksfter the war. he was an example of how technological change occurred. you have theseyounger, very aggressive aviation pilots who were willing to take lots of risk and who were very confident of the power of their new emerging wing of power, the airplane. and they are really very different from the stogie battleship admirals who were very confidence. >> host: the comparisons to september 11 is very similar. we've been doing a presidential history series for 12 weeks and long the way uncovered from the roosevelt library t administration's discussion with the nation about pearl harr that said on december 7th, 1941, with the first lady on a radio show. we have a clip of that for you to listen to.
>> many of you all over this country have boys in the services who will now be called upon to go into action. you have friends and families and what has suddenly become a danger zone. yocannot escape anxiety. you cannot escape a clutch of fear at your heart. and yet i hope that the certainty of what we have to meet will make you rise above these fears. we must go about our daily business more determined than ever to do the ordinary things as well as we can. and when we find a way to do anything more in our communities to help others, to build mole, to give a feeling the security, we must do it. whatever is asked of us, i'm sure we can accomplish it. we are the free and unconquerable people of the united states of america. to the young people of the
nation, i'm going to speak a word tonight. you're going to have a great o@portunity. there will be high moments in which your strength and your ability will be tested. i have faith in you. i feel as though i was standing upon a rock. that rock is my faith in my fellow citizens. >> host: what do you hear there? >> guest: well, first of all, i didn't realize till you told me awhile ago that was the first official statement by the administration. a lot of different things. she's the first first lady to truly have a national presence, and this is a wonderful radio broadcast. second, even though we'd been badly surprised. even though we had lost our battleships, even though there had been thousands of americans killed, when you listen to that voice, there is a calm, firm, determined response. and i thinthat's where her husband was. these were not folks who were
frightened by the challenge. they were going to rise to the challenge. they were going to mobilize the nation and they were going to defeat imperial japan and nazi germany and, of course, they did. >> host: will the same message be delivered and resonate with young aricans today? >> guest: i think so. if you look at the mood immediately after 9/11, there was an enormous resurgence of american patriotism and a willingness to sacrifice. people volunteering to join the military. i think americans potentially as patriotic as they have ever been but they are not as well educated about american history. this is a unique and remarkable. >> host: see how fast we have to go books what seems like a long time. i'm going to move into your civil war trilogy but before i want to do that i wt to tell people about phone calls. let me give you the telhone numbers so you can get in queue for a phone call.
even though this is a program about book c-span and "book tv" always focus on nonfiction books and history books so lots of politics involved and that's why we ave the political phone lines. it began with the novel gettysburg, and, in fact, somewhere in our archives we have some footage of qou traveling up to the gettysburg field? >> guest: we decided that we would all go up dressed in authentic civil war costumes and we'd help launch the book and we just had a great time. and there's a particular photographer up there who -- that's bill fortune my co-author who was having the time of his life at that point. there was this wonderful photographer in gettysburg who takes pictures of the equipment of 1863. it's a fun experience to go and ha your picture made in that era's technology and to see how
they did it. one thing i learned you had to to still for 7 seconds in order for the film, 'cause there's literally a film of chemicals for the filmo set in a plate. they would put%ñl a rod behind r head and you would be sitting like this and the reason why all these people were stiff, they were actually sitti like this and the photographer would say you have to hold this for 7 seconds or not move and the picture would be ruined. it's fun to learn but they add a sense of understanding of the period you're trying to writing about and we have in volume 3, we have a civil war photographer play a significant active role just for the fun of it to illustrate what people were going through. >> host: this an example of your active history concept with bill fortune. what's the hole twist on this series? >> guest: let me say first of all i have to thank major general bob scales whot that time was head of the army war college and colonel lynn
fullencamp who was the expert on gettysbu gettysburg. we spent days with them and designed an alternative campaign for lee that was muc closer to what he'd done at chcellorville and at second manassas. he were able to create a totally accurate a step-by-step campaign where lee wins a decisive victory. u can actually follow our novel and you can drive down the roads we describe and you can see the fort across the river and you can see the old farmhouse. you can see the pipeline -- the pipe creek line which is where we think the battle would have fought if they'd maneuvered correctly. and we ask a very important question and there's many folks in georgia who are thrilled lee won gettysburg. if he won gettysburg, would lincoln have quit? weon't think because grant
would have won vicksburg in the same week and grant would have been called earlier and you might have had a decisive campaign in 1863 and we sort of carry you through that in the next two volumes. >> host: of course, you did represent georgia in congress but as we s you spent a good part of your time in pennsylvania. where is your loyalties re? >> guest: my loyalties are to america. i was born in harrisburg and had many relevants. when i was 10 we moved to fort riley, kansas, and i went to the school jction city elementary school and i went to france and germany an finally in a junior in high school ended up in georgia and really, i think, became in my 20s a georgian. >> host: the next two books which we have in paper book. talk us through the important parts of these books and what people should know? >> guest: well, at the end o the gettysburg you have lee
wiing potomac and lincoln to bring in grant who's his best general to the east as fast a possible. because of the scale of the defeat of the union army, @e has to bring a substantial amount of the army of the west with him, which involves using steamboats and railroads and all the advantages the north had in logistics and in grant comes east, we say agriculture it's going to take 6 to 8 weeks for the union army to get he, for grant to ship all these folks out of western tennessee and get them to harrisburg, which is the logical marshalling point. if you're lee, what do you try to do in those 6 to 8 weeks. we show where he first trying to take washington and failing because it was the most heavily fortified city in the world and bouncing off washington and capturing baltimore which was not very well defended. and we show the turmoil and the confusion and the degree to whh lee on offense all during july of 1863 would have been a very, very serious problem for lincoln and for the union. and at the end of volume 2, we
have lee up on the northern end of maryland right at poised to cross into pennsylvania on the eastern side of pennsylvania. and we have grant having finally organized his forces at harrisburg. prepared actually to march south towards frederick, maryland, and cut off lee from being able to get back home to virginia. and that sets up the race which is what volume three is all about. >> host: i suspect we'll get lots of questions from our viewers from that. before we go to calls i want to have you talk about this partnership with bill fortune and what role the two of you play as writers? >>uest: well, bill is both a great professional writer. he's written over 40 novels and a ph.d. in history and steve hanser who's our mutual friend and a mentor and also a ph.d. our first book was 1945, which is a very odd artifact.
usually means it's dead. and so we want history to come alive and we think that active history is a great way to get people involved to say, okay. could it happen this why? why didn't it happen this way. it gets you to think, not memorize. >> host: it's 24 minutes past the hour. let's get the viewers involved in this. we'll begin a call on hopetown, arizona. you're on the air? >> caller: good afternoon, mr. gingrich. it's an honor to speak you. i've been admirer of yours when you spoke about the book about the wise men, about the six men who made american foreign policy. and i've been an admirer since thensince that special order. i want to discuss with you the
environmentalists and what their real agenda is. there was a candidate for mayor of neu york a few years ago. his name was mark een. i called him mark watermelon because he was green on the outside but, boy, was he red on the inside. and isn't that what -- as far as the democrats are concerned, isn't that what it's all about with them? that's question on the other question is on what you were just talking about. don't you have to know the dates? don't you have to know the events in order to think outside the box the way you are? and isn't it the duty of the school system to teach the dates and events first? >> host: thank you. let's go from there? >> guest: let me work backwards. i couldn't agree more that you have to learn the dates and events but there's a huge difference in learning them if you're just memorizing them to get through aest or think about what they mean and how they fit together i believe it takes more knowledge to write active
history than it does to write a straight narrative. i find that when bill and steve and i get together to talk about things, we really have to understand the logistics, the technology, the culture, the history of period and be able to put it all together in a very dynamic way that actually requires much more knowledge than it would if we had been writing a standard narrative. on your first one, i think you're certainly partially right. there are -- i'v always been a conservationists. my fame on pennsylvania was oriented toward conservation. we had a cabin below state college. i spent most of my childhood in conservation. sometime in the 1970s and '80s, the environmental movement went way to the left. it became about government control, about big bureaucracy. and so -- but i think rather
than just say they are wrong. we have to have an approach which says here are better answers and better solutions and the purpose of writing contract with earth was to begin the outline of philosophy of better solutions and better approaches. >> host: stanton, virginia, is next. an independent line. you're welcome to the conversation. >> caller: how areou doing? >> host: ne. thanks. >> caller: mr. gingrich, when you were running -- when you were contemplating running for president, i heard you on three speeches. twice on c-spannd once on the radio. all three times you said that you represent small government, less spending and yet you said you wanted to triple the size of homeland security, dble the size of our military and in both cases, we're talking about more brick mortar and government employees here and abroad. and don't you think it's just as much of a deception for these
other big government, big spending republicans running for president now who say they want less spending when they becom president. on the other hand, they want to continue their -- they support the continuation of our military in the middle east? >> guest: one-fifth of the government is spent on security. so you could, in fact, control federal spending, transform the health system, which is the most expensive single aspect, move towards a personal social security savings account, returning the money back to individuals in a way they get to invest and they get to increase their wealth. and you can do that by stolening defense. i never actually called for the size increase you describe. i have called for a bigger state department but it's a very small agency.
i would have a somewhatigger military but only about 5% of the gross domestic product, which would be about half what it was under president truman in 1949nd less than hf what it was under president kennedy in 1963 or under president eisenhower in the 1950s. you'll be a smaller military than we had all during the early stages of the cold war but a bigger military than what we have right now. let me also point out as speaker of the house i helped balance the federal budget for four conqecutive years. we set priorities and we doubl the recognize of the national institutes of health while controlling spending and we pd off $405 million in federal debt over those four years so i know as a matter of fact it can be done. and that's part what i'm outlining in the book that'll come out in january called real change, moving from the world that fails to the world that works. i'm delighted with that question. i hope that gives you some answers. >> host: while you referenced it as an author ? >> guest: i'm literally today finish the editing of real
change which will come out in january from regnery. it's a pretty daunting job. i did the first draft, 94,000 words and then we've gone through it several times and i'm now in the final draft of what eg-ll volume. >> host: dear honorable gingrich, ronald reagan wrote in his autobiography that he voted for fdr four times and was not trying toun deal the new deal, social security, the faa and the fair labor standards act. instead reagan wrote he was trying to undo the '60s and '70s liberal policies which dramatically increased the size of government far beyond what fdr would have approved of. reagan said that he didn't change. the democratic party changed. do you have any opinion on these
perspectives. >> guest: i always say they should study theranklin delano roosevelt because he was the most successful leader in the 21st century. and ronald reagan was a new deal democrat. he campaigned for harry truman in 1948. really only began to be a republican working with eisenhower in the '50s and then really cnged parties in 1960. i think partly he's right. that if you go back, for example, franklin delano roosevelt was against welfare as a subsisence. president roosevelt was against social security becoming an income transfer program. he wanted it to be a safety net. and i think he would aually in the modern era strongly support the idea of a personal social security savings account where you could invest the money and you could build up interest and over your working lifetime you would have three or four times as much money as you're going to get from a transfer system. so i think there's a lot to be learned from fdr, and i think
any republican who wants to learn how to build a stable governing majority would do very well to study reagan and the person that reagan studi and that was fdr. >> host: indianapolis, good afternoon. and welcome. >> caller: hi. speaker gingrich, i have two points i'd like you to respond to. first, i believe global warming -- manmade global warming is a fraud and one of the reason i believe even the extremists on the position, they don't buy their beach front property to cheap property on alaska. whatever financial reasons they would do such things like that, you know, from al gore on down. but the second question i'd like you to respond to. i worked on the campaign in 1994 -- yeah, 1994. we won in e republican revolution.
you had a chance to debate president clinton in 1995. it was called the great debate. and i believe that you didn't debate him, and you punted and you had sort of a lovefest there which really disappointed me. now you're calling for the debates to be like a lincoln-douglas style debates in the '08 election. why did you punt in 1995 and not debate the major issues of the day, you know, like the size of government, taxes, all the issues that we had in '94, and rather you seemed to punt on the issue. >> host:hank you? >> guest: those are totally different questions. on global warming, i d't think you have to agree that the evidence is conclude to agree as a conservative that it's useful to be cautious. there's enough evidence to justify being careful without
having to say that there's overwhelming conclusive evidence. second, on the question of the 1995 debate, we, in fact, had an agreement in massachusetts to debate the election reform process. it was a very specific topic. it's the only thing we debated. and we disagreed quite deeply. but we didn't agree to get together to debate big issues. i really think it would be really helpful to have this entire currently process of debates where the news media is setting the standard. the news media is asking the questions and making the choices. i would like to see that replaced with a process where the candidates ask all the questions and the candidates actually talk with each other and we get a genuine dialog. the lincoln-las debates were seven three-hour debates with a time keeper and no moderator. and where the candidates set the terms of the debate. d i strongly recommend that you look at harold hu electiolt
on it. when private citizen lincoln went to cooper union in new york city and gave a two-hour speech, which was printed in virtually every northern newspaper, a it is the only speech he gives in the campaign. he gives it in february of 1860. repeats it once each in rhode island, massachusetts, and new hampshire. goes back home and does not give another speech until he gives the farewell address leaving springfield in 1861. >> host: what do you think of the youtube format? >> guest: i think it's stupid, candidly. cnn gets to take 5,000 entries by their own count and the cnn correspondent gets to pick the ones they want to pick. they picked one from an edwards supporter. they picked onerom a clinton supporter. they picked one from an obama supporter and they picked one designed to embarrass republicans and they are mickey mouse. theyasicly say to the potential president ofthe united states. you now have 30 seconds to answer what i'm defining. if you look at the ad they ran
which had a huge picture of anderson cooper and tiny little pictures of the presidential candidates. or if you look at the 60-secon ad that msnbc is run being chriy matthews which basically say here's what chris matthew defined the presidential campaign. it's crazy for this country to allow the news media to covering e news to becoming the definers of the news and the arbiters of legitimacy and it's doublym crazy for to have liberl reporters decide which questions will be said. >> host: here's a question from walter evans abo the "pearl harbor." does your research give you insights on the timeline when the federal government began its effort to determine who knew what and when before the attack? or to paraphrase senator baker's famous watergate question made in the same hearing room, the senate caucus room, also used for the pearl harbor hearings, what did the president and others know and when did they know it?
how much of itself investigation was an honest attpt to gathe facts and how much was to pin blame and en identify any scapegoats? thank you? >> guest: well, i think there's no question that admiral kimmel and general short became scapegoats. i mean, somebody had to suffer. and presidents usually decide it's not them. on the other hand, there's also no question that we did not exactly know where the japanese were going to attack. i think it's fair to say that we generally thought they would attack the philippines and malaysia and not attack pearl harbor. we thought iwas so unlikely that they would risk their carriers with that long raid and they would start the war with that kind of daring event. the other thing i just read a terrific book called mcarthur's
go ahead. >> caller: hello. i've bee trying to speak for newt gingrich for years? >> guest: i'm here. >> caller: and well, i like the way you wrote your own history. it was bill clinton that got us out of budget debt with thel÷ conservatives kicking and screaming behind him. one thing i want to ask you how can you look at yourself in the mirror each day when you're vilifying clinton for monica lewinski when you were having an affair on your own wife? >> guest: you now said two things that are untrue. the first is if you go back and pull up the record, you'll find that in 1995, we said starting in april, we were going to balance the budget in seven years. the white house said initily they couldn't balance the budget at all and then kicking and several after several months of debate they should they could balance it in 10 years and then they said after kicking and scream after several more months andaybe we can balance it if we use phony numbers.
it was only after 8 months of constant pressure and negoation that the white house agreed to develop a balanced budget. so let's just set the record treating. you can check it on google. you can pull it up and look at the c-span archives. there's no question that it was the house republicans who were insisting on balancing the budget. and second i think we'll get to this later ith third hour. on the issue of impeachment. president clinton engaged in perjury in front of a federal judge in a federal civil rights lawsuit. now, barry bonds is currently facing jail time for perjury. a you been in of other people have faced jail time for perjury. scooter libby was charged for perjury. perjury is a felony. it is lying in front of a federal judge under oath in a way which obstructs justice. it's not rendering judgment on a person private's life. it's asking a question as whether or not as an attorney who graduated from yale law school he should be expected to
hold the same standard of obeying the law as the rest of the country. d that was entirely the focus of my comments in 1998. >> host: will wil wilmington, n carolina, you're on. go ahead, caller. last time for wilmington. the next call is from new york city. go ahead, please. new york? i think we're having technical questions. and you can let us know when we got the question here. this is a question from someone fr hollywood about movie-making. mr. gingrich, i suppose, it's well known we who live outside of hollywood in new york ty actually read things. what are your thoughts as a novelist on the impact and power of myth and story on society these days? is there a spirit of diversity in the entertainment book lture? it seems consensus is affting the entertainment industry --
their industry's bottom line in the u.s.a. consensus as an end seems like a very bad idea. that's from someone named m. miller in pennsylvania. >> guest: it's very interesting. i just saw a fascinating editorial pointing o that the propagandaistic left wing antiwar movies that have come out in the last year have done very, very badly at the box office. and somof them have done so badly they may not make back the initial investment, and i would say the country is much more a center right country than hollywood understand. at americansolutions.com we listed $428,000 worth of polling that people can go and look at. and they can see for themselves from six different national polls how much this is a much more center-right country than hollywood unrstands. let me say think myth-making is important. if you go back to world war ii
casablanca really mattered. and he would cry when lawrence olivia, nelson with a talk about britain and standing up against dictatorships and the courage of being british and all that. so movies can have an enormously powerful affect on culture and on myth, on personal psychology. i thought it's really sad that daniel silva, who's one of the great modern writers about terrorism and espionage that his novels, which are terrific novels have not been picked up by hollywood. but they are novels which are anti-islamic extremist and they are pro israel. that's not something hollywo >> host: i just heard him speak at the national book festival in washington, which we covered and a question came up and he has an option? >> guest: that's great. his books are fabulous. >> host: howards beach, on the
air. >> caller: the one you didn't answered is after the president asked for a declaration of war everyone except one -- there was one vote against the declaration of war, i believe. i'd like to know if you remember if you know what the rationale of the representative gave for not declaring war on japan? >> guest: if i remember correctly it was pacifist from montana and she had as opposed to world war i and wor war ii. >> caller: so i see. and the other thing -- and you may have discussed this, i understand that the nal -- the japanese naval code was broken. i'm not accusing the president of knowing the nature or where the attack took place. the question is was he informed that there was a potential for an attack in the pacific? deny that there was a potential fo an attack on the pacific at that time? and if he did know, shouldn't he put all bases on the western pacific on alert. thank you? >> guest: that's a great
question. we had broken the japanese diplomatic code but we had the ability but not complete to use the japanese naval code. the tragedy is that they did send out two weeks before the war, they sent outn alert everywhere in the pacific. that's art of e reason that admiral kimmel and general short are fired. they have been given warnings. we clearly knew the japanese were on the ve. we were actually tracking japanese troop ships going down past saigon. we philly expected a japanese attack. we and the british were monitoringnd watching the troop ships as they went down towards indochina and on towards ma-leia. the japanese fleet went to total radio silence and there was no indication that the japanese fleet was at sea, and no ability to track where it was. >> host: lansing, michigan, you're on for newt gingrich in our conversation about books and
ideas. go ahead,caller. lansing, michigan. >> host: it looks like we're having a challenge here with the control room. can we try lansing one last time or do we have another call on the line here? >> caller: this is new york you have on the line. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: okay. it's an honor to get through. it's very surprising. anyway, mr. gingrich, i hea you speak previously about a contract-based society versus a covenant-based society. and i'd like to you elaborate on that and if i could reply what i hear what you have to say because i'm sure it'll be interesting? >> guest: i'm not sure the difference you're alluding. contract is a secular term about a contract that you might have. covenant normally implies some nd of larger spiritual background. you could argue, for example, that the declaration of independence, which says we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights which
is the life and right of happiness. our rights come directly from rights -- it doesn't imply. our rights come directly from god. so i'm not quite sure - i'm not sure the context in which you're describing the difference. >> host: next question, new haven, connecticut. you're on the air. >> caller: yes. thank you very much for c-span. and mr. gingrich, i have so much respect for you as a thinker even though i may disagree with some of your positions. but my question relates to climate change. a number of months ago i saw on c-span on a debate discussion you have with john kerry. do you remember? >> guest: yes, ma'am. >> caller: and what struck me is john kerry who's normally referred to as a liberal democrat from massachusetts was talking about market-based solutions which was putting a cap on carbon and then letting the price be determined by tha and letting innovation occur based on the price. and you as a conservative, you're saying that you want market-based solutions, but you were opposed to th and instead
wanted more government funding, you know, use of taxpayer dollars in the use of subsidies or tax breaks to support innovation. in 1990 the most successful and cheapest thing we've had to control pollution was the clean air act that was signed by former president bush who set a cap on c02 and let the market work out the applies i'm wondering why you would be opposed to putting a price on carbon and letting the innovation occur like companies, ge, b.p., dupont and all the major companies in the u.s. cap are calling for a price because then they would be able to innovate and we're never going to have enough govnment funding to get the innovation that we need. but if we let the market rk, we would get that a lot quicker and a lot more cheaply. >> host: thank you, caller? >> guest: i actually helped pass the clean air act you're describing in 1990. i was the republican whip at the time and i did establish a cap and trade offer for sul fearic
acid. that's a very specific product of a very small nber of electrical plants and can be monitored pretty easily. carbon is ubiquitous to the whole economy. it's annormously more complicated topic and in europe the efforts of cap and trade, i think, have been pretty much a failure and have led to all sorts of distortions in the system. i was delighted that senat kerry was moving towards a market-oriented approach a i said so at the time in that debate or discussion i think would be a more accurate term. the difference is i would like to lower the price of hydrogen, of ethanol,f wind, of solar because i think you're going to get faster acceleration of new innovation if you lower the price of the good products of the future, rather than raise the price of the obsolete products of the past. when we decided we wanted a transcontinental railroads, we didn't start by raising the tax on stage coaches. we started by setting incentive both land and monies to
encourage companies to build railroads. when we decided that it was time to fundamentally to move horse and buggy, we wanted ford to dramatically lower the cost of car. when we wanted the airmail system of the 1920s we subsidized airlines to carry the airmail. we did not try to tax trains for carrying mail. so i think the idea of punishing people into the future is in the long run much more expensive and didn't get the change you want. increasing theain level is not the key. increasing the reward level for innovation for science and technology and having prizes to help us -- i'd like to see a billion llar tax-ee prize to the first hydrogen engine that can be mass produced at a reasonable price bause that kind of breakthrough changmakes changes. >> host: you mentioned these
transformational events in american society, when you look at the topics that you've chosen forever your historical novels, so far they are all about war. have you considered writing about things like the transcontinental train line or other things that are not war-based which have, in fact, transformed society? >> guest: i think there's a society pair of novels that could be written about technological change, which is something we don't do very well in this country. don't talk about very well. we do it brilliantly but we don't think about it very much. one would be the period from about 1880 to 1920 when you had just an extraordinary explosion of innovation. alexander graham bell invents the t8oj%=99ñ edison invents the electric light, the motion picture. edison personally invented 6% of the economy. henry ford invents mass-produced standaized manufacturing. when you look at all the stuff th's going on, it's an astonishing period of technological change. and it might be fun someday to
try to do that. bill and steve and i have approached this from the standpoint that the great thretd and danger that we will underestimate our enemies will have potential consequence if we get biological or nuclear attacks. writing a series ofovels to get people to think of national security is our first priority but i think you raise a very good point it would be to write some novels about technology. >> host: steven from florida, you're on the air. >> caller: mr. gingrich, my question is historical. i've been saddened over the years about the massive horror of our civil war. and it's never been clear to me just what the overlying motives were for starting the war, that lincoln had. could you clarify that? >> guest: that's a very good question. i think it's somet